World Cup 2010 - Prelude to South Africa

[Horza]

Yep, experience with doing well in World Cups is a great asset to have - see also Italy.

[Padraig]

I've never quite understood the "Germans will always get through because they're German" philosophy. They didn't make it out of the group stages in Euro 2000 or 2004, for example.

Very well said. :) Germany are one of the stronger teams at the moment but they are also in one of the hardest groups, so its certainly possible they will fail to qualify. They are a very solid team and they don't give away the type of stupid goals they have previously. Solidity means a lot. Organisation. Brazil have it too (at the expense of their old flare). A team like France should have it but seem to wilt instead.

History doesn't mean much though, except that Jon AS is right that they are stronger now than they were in the early part of this decade. That is important. Germany are always likely to do well in tournament but every so often they will fail like they did in the Euros.

Clearly they are going to lose a WC group match eventually and if you lose 1 game you will struggle to qualify. Especially in this type of group.

[Sir Thursday]

Them not losing a WC Group match since 1986 probably has something to do with it.

Sure, but as far as I'm concerned, performance in the Euros is just as important for establishing a reputation as an infallible tournament team. The standard of the groups in the Euros is more comparable to what they'll be facing this time round than previous WCs as well. They made heavy weather of what was, on paper, by far the easiest group two years ago.

[Padraig]

Yep, experience with doing well in World Cups is a great asset to have - see also Italy.

But those teams actually do well because historically they are actually good teams. :p Sure Italy in 2006 weren't particularly full of flair but they were very secure defensively and had a decent midfield. That was enough against the type of opposition they faced.

You can point at plenty of sub-standard or average Italian and German teams that didn't do very well.

[ljkeane]

You can point at plenty of sub-standard or average Italian and German teams that didn't do very well.

To be fair I can also think of at least one average German team that did far better than expected as well. The culture of doing well in international tournaments does seem to help some teams, although it's certainly far from a guarantee of success.

[polishgenius]

They made heavy weather of what was, on paper, by far the easiest group two years ago.

Yeah, but they scraped their way through and kept on scraping their way to the final. At the 2002 world cup they did something similar, got the final from pretty much nowhere. And they got to the semis last time with a fairly average team too, although in that case home advantage may have helped.

[Altherion]

Very well said. :) Germany are one of the stronger teams at the moment but they are also in one of the hardest groups, so its certainly possible they will fail to qualify.

Really? It's always possible, but I don't think that group is very hard at all. None of those teams are anywhere near Germany's level. Serbia is OK, but not great. Any wagers on Ghana rely solidly on the fact that they'll be playing better in Africa or get help from the referees. To be honest, I don't think the effect will be that great (for South Africa, sure... but the continent-wide one will be much weaker). Australia looks to me like the team Germany typically uses to rack up their goal differential.

Sure, but as far as I'm concerned, performance in the Euros is just as important for establishing a reputation as an infallible tournament team.

I don't think so. The Euros are important and many of the strongest teams play there, but they're not at the level of the WC. It's winners include, for example, Denmark and Greece -- decent teams, but in the WC they'd never get past the semi-finals.

[Alcibiades]

I want the world cup to start TODAY.

[polishgenius]

Really? It's always possible, but I don't think that group is very hard at all. None of those teams are anywhere near Germany's level. Serbia is OK, but not great. Any wagers on Ghana rely solidly on the fact that they'll be playing better in Africa or get help from the referees.

I think you're overrating the strength of the squad- Germany have a great team ethic but they don't have a great deal of spark, Mehut Ozil aside, and their defence could be fragile. I rate them but they're not that much better than the rest of the group and their mentality will count for a lot.

As for Ghana, again yes, they lack flair but their defence should be solid and they'll dominate the midfield against anyone what with Essien.

[Mme Erzulie]

You think Slovakia will finish below New Zealand? Are you serious?

I can see them winning that group with a bit of luck, they're a dangerous side and Italy really are poor at the moment.

Yup. Winners of Group G and H don't meet till the final.

http://www.fifa.com/...es/kostage.html

I was trying to find some sort of excel spreadsheet which automatically creates the knock out stages but I couldn't find anything quickly.

Ok, my multiquote button is obviously struggling, I tried quoting the posts that were directed at me.

And yes, you Euro-centric bastards, New Zealand will thoroughly trounce Slovakia, Slovenia or whatever they're called.

Alternately, I could only be bothered to worry about the teams qualifying, and didn't waste a second worrying about who lost and who lost more.

[Sir Thursday]

Yeah, but they scraped their way through and kept on scraping their way to the final. At the 2002 world cup they did something similar, got the final from pretty much nowhere. And they got to the semis last time with a fairly average team too, although in that case home advantage may have helped.

My point was more to do with the quality of the opposition. Let's have a look at who they've had in their groups for the last few years:

WC 1998: Yugoslavia, Iran, United States: 1st (7 points)

Euro 2000: Portugal, Romania, England. Result: 4th (1 point)

WC 2002: Republic of Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia: 1st (7 points)

Euro 2004: Netherlands, Czech Republic, Latvia: 3rd (2 points)

WC 2006: Ecuador, Poland, Costa Rica: 1st (9 points)

Euro 2008: Croatia, Austria, Poland: 2nd (6 points)

Now, there are only really two groups that look challenging to me there (I suppose you could make a case for '02, but from memory Cameroon were nowhere near the standard they are today back then), and those are the groups that Germany failed to qualify from. I see nothing there implies that Germany have a pedigree of consistently getting past teams of the standard they will be facing this time around. If anything they seem to need an easy group to start off with in order to do well. Which they haven't got here.

Sir Thursday

[kuroishi]

So, now that the unimportant details (qualifications, groups) are done, let's talk about the really important stuff...

Like, who will collect the Panini stickers for South Africa 2010 ? ;)

(I found my old 1994 album recently, which was a real shame ! No stickers for the USA, Russia, Ireland, Norway, Mexico and Holland teams !? Wtf Panini ! They must have had trouble with the rights...)

I bought the 2006 album for the first time since 1994 but the stickers are really expensive (and I had no one to trade with) so I quickly forgot about it... Do kids even do it anymore these days ?

[Fireball07]

Germany's WC record is brilliant. And this is quite a good German side, I would be very surprised if they didn't get through the group.

And Serbia are a good side, well-organised in defence, and have a good few options going forward. I would expect them to go through. Australia are definitely the weakest team in that group.

A lot of people are underrating Slovakia, Paraguay were good in qualifying but they've been good in qualifying and always failed to deliver. Slovakia will be confident of beating them.

[Padraig]

To be fair I can also think of at least one average German team that did far better than expected as well.

And a rather poor Greece team won the European championship. Poor teams can do well. I do accept its a bit more difficult for a Greece to win the WC. You need a lot of luck to get past everyone in Europe. And in a WC you are thrown against Brazil and Argentina too. (And now the best from Africa). But at the same time, poor teams have done well in major tournaments.

Its not a surprise that the most successful countries are the larger ones. Germany will never lose that advantage. Although, while I knocked history before, I did ignore one thing. A country does need a football culture. Germany, Italy and Brazil win WCs. China and the US don't. Some teams are nearly always good enough to qualify for the finals. And once you are there then anything can happen.

And the kind of football Germany plays is ideal for doing well in tournament football. I shouldn't deny that. Solidity, effort, good team spirit.

Take Portugal in 2008. They had many good factors but their defence was hopelessly exposed by Germany. Portugal are a team that have lacked the solidity required. Not that Germany have not erred also, but (ignoring the rare very poor team) you rarely see them so exposed in decisive matches.

In 2002, Cameroon self-destructed. Problems with their FA. They should have been a major threat but dropped out of the tournament with barely a whimper. 2002 was a weird year. Brazil were the stand out team and there wasn't any other. France should have been a threat but Zidane's injury ended that claim. So if you are only left with one very good side, then Germany is definitely a good candidate to get out of the pack.

None of those teams are anywhere near Germany's level

Sorry. This maybe the best German team in quite a while but at the same time, I don't think they are brilliant. Who are the these great players that put them on such a higher level?

Serbia (or their various representations) have underperformed in recent major tournaments. Maybe because of the turmoil there. They don't have that to distract them this time. Kuroishi's point about Serbia is a fair one, except they were good enough to avoid slipping up against teams like Austria. And AFAICT they played France off the field in Paris in the first half but failed to convert chances.

[Altherion]

This maybe the best German team in quite a while but at the same time, I don't think they are brilliant. Who are the these great players that put them on such a higher level?

Ballack, Klose, Podolski and possibly the goalkeeper Adler (I've heard a lot of good things about him, but I haven't seen enough of him to judge yet).

And AFAICT they played France off the field in Paris in the first half but failed to convert chances.

See, I don't think that counts. Creating chances to score is what separates the solid teams from the lousy ones, but the world class ones are separated from the solid ones by the ability to actually convert those chances. If you "play someone off the field" and lose the match 2-1, it means you either got cleverly schooled by a superior coach or you're not actually that good.

[Horus Ex Machina]

Its not a surprise that the most successful countries are the larger ones. Germany will never lose that advantage. Although, while I knocked history before, I did ignore one thing. A country does need a football culture. Germany, Italy and Brazil win WCs. China and the US don't. Some teams are nearly always good enough to qualify for the finals. And once you are there then anything can happen.

To that I'll say this: the US will probably eventually win a World Cup and perhaps before it truly achieves tier one status in the US. We lack for interest, but never for athletes and that is why the US has been able to make such tremendous strides in the past 20 years. Interest will always trail the quality of US soccer IMO. But with changing demographics and more televised games here it is picking up interest as well. The US is well ahead of China, for example. And it isn't for lack of interest in China since they seem to have less of an anti-football culture than we do.

[Zach H]

I want the world cup to start TODAY.

Me too. I'm more anxious after seeing the U.S.'s semi-favorable draw than I would've been had they been placed with more than one obvious heavyweight. Pressure's on big time now.

Still, Olympic hockey is a nice way to bide time until the Big Dance starts.

[Alcibiades]

To that I'll say this: the US will probably eventually win a World Cup and perhaps before it truly achieves tier one status in the US. We lack for interest, but never for athletes and that is why the US has been able to make such tremendous strides in the past 20 years. Interest will always trail the quality of US soccer IMO. But with changing demographics and more televised games here it is picking up interest as well. The US is well ahead of China, for example. And it isn't for lack of interest in China since they seem to have less of an anti-football culture than we do.

I want to add to this a point about population differences: The United States doesn't have to become so soccer crazy to start to compete with smaller European countries. We have such a larger population to draw upon, even if the sport never achieves tier one status, we'd be able to compete on equal terms with the Europeans and perhaps even Argentina and Brazil.

China, with over a billion people, is an even deadlier long term prospect for soccer strength.

[Horza]

I want to add to this a point about population differences: The United States doesn't have to become so soccer crazy to start to compete with smaller European countries. We have such a larger population to draw upon, even if the sport never achieves tier one status, we'd be able to compete on equal terms with the Europeans and perhaps even Argentina and Brazil.

China, with over a billion people, is an even deadlier long term prospect for soccer strength.

I think infrastructure is probably the key thing, not so much population - you might have 300m people but only 23 make up a WC Squad and you need the development system in place to produce the sort of players that will compete with the heavies, and that takes time. The US is heading down that path and it's an uncharted territory as no non-football majority country has become a heavyweight yet, so we shall see.

[Arakasi]

Things will have to change in the US so when kids are in their teens that soccer is more popular than football, basketball and baseball. I know soccer in the US is played a lot, but that is mostly at a younger age. Mid teenage years is more dominated by the other sports.